Another USian talking about "authoritarian regimes" like their stormtroopers arent executing civilians in the street every day. Every concern about power getting "into the wrong hands" coming from an American is a blatant lie meant to keep the US' position as the world dominant imperialistic force.
Our position on open-weights models
731–740 of 1001 posts
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#732Schrödinger's China at once is an evil entity looking to use AI for their own nefarious purposes yet also willing to cooperate with their main competitor to prevent other actors (who??) from achieving similar goals (all while under a chip embargo too!!) The reality is much less confusing: Anthropic CEO does not wish for models with similar (or greater) capabilities compared to his own closed and overpriced ones to be…
I don’t disagree with your point on Dario’s conflict of interest. I def think the models are expensive. But why call them overpriced? Compared to what? Even if we take the margin reports at face value, we don’t know their training costs, etc. Curious if this was more of an emotional take or if there’s actual evidence behind it.
Yeah I don’t think they are over-priced, last I checked all those companies are still losing money hand over fist.
I guess the question is more he doesn’t want people catching up by doing cheaper training (through distillation or otherwise), and he definitely doesn’t want companies to spend their money training these models and then _giving them away_, which fundamentally undercuts their commercial model and any way to claw back their investment
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#733How about;
1. Make anti-distillation clauses illegal to strenghten western opensource eco-system.
2. Make cyber-defensive models widely available (can detect but won't operationalize vulnerabilities). Otherwise make Fable awailable for everyone. Keeping the cybersecurity in assymetry by withholding cabailities just causes more instability and increases the incentives for powerfull close sourced models. This is a loss for everyone.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#734To everyone here pushing for total proliferation of open models -- what should be done about open weight bioweapon and cyber-offense capabilities? Is it simply the cost of freedom that we should allow attackers to access these tools? The OpenAI / Hugging Face incident shows what a GPT 5.6 level model can do off the leash; within ~6 months, open weight models will match this and every bad actor under the sun will be a…
If everyone has access to the same offensive tools, everyone is able to run their own pentests and patch themselves before the bad guys get to them.
It’s like a vaccine where you get to try a medication based on the original pathogen by performing a dry-run on a backup of yourself already in a hospital ward.
Open models aren’t like firearms. If everyone has a gun the mall parking lot is a much more dangerous place because the consequences of using a firearm are so dire, even if you’re in the right.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#735[deleted]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#736We do not want to ban using those models, we want to ban the things that enable those models to exist.
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#737[dead]
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#738That’s pretty thin
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#739Dude is churning out brain rot slop. That text read as if it was vibed out on the couch
Re: Our position on open-weights models
#740If we really cared about AI we would work together